ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have provided evidence of suboptimal or poor immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and chimeric antigen receptor-T (CAR-T) cell therapy compared to healthy individuals. Given the dynamic nature of SARS-CoV2, characterized by the emergence of many viral variations throughout the general population, there is ongoing discussion regarding the optimal quantity and frequency of additional doses required to sustain protection against SARS-CoV2 especially in this susceptible population. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the immune responses of HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients to additional doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the study involved a comprehensive search across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and Cochrane Biorxiv and medRxiv, focusing on the serological responses to the third and fourth vaccine doses in HSCT and CAR-T cell patients. RESULTS: This study included 32 papers, with 31 qualifying for the meta-analysis. Results showed that after the third dose, the seroconversion rate in HSCT and CAR-T cell therapy recipients who didn't respond to the second dose was 46.10 and 17.26%, respectively. Following the fourth dose, HSCT patients had a seroconversion rate of 27.23%. Moreover, post-third-dose seropositivity rates were 87.14% for HSCT and 32.96% for CAR-T cell therapy recipients. Additionally, the seropositive response to the fourth dose in the HSCT group was 90.04%. CONCLUSION: While a significant portion of HSCT recipients developed antibodies after additional vaccinations, only a minority of CAR-T cell therapy patients showed a similar response. This suggests that alternative vaccination strategies are needed to protect these vulnerable groups effectively. Moreover, few studies have reported cellular responses to additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in these patients. Further studies evaluating cellular responses are required to determine a more precise assessment of immunogenicity strength against SARS-CoV-2 after additional doses.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Vaccination/methods , Immunotherapy, Adoptive/methods , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methodsABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1339605.].
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Donor choosing remains to play a pivotal role in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Numerous criteria beyond HLA compatibility impact the selection of a suitable donor. Methods: We evaluated the effect of donor parity on transplant outcomes in a large homogeneously treated population that received an HLA-matched allo-HSCT between 2010 and 2021 at our center. All patients were transplanted from a peripheral blood stem cell source following a myeloablative Busulfan-based conditioning and an identical protocol for graftversus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis regimen. Results: A total of 1103 allo-HSCT recipients were included. 188 (17%) had transplants from parous female donors, whereas 621 (56.30%) and 294 (26.70%) received transplants from male and nulliparous female donors, respectively. HSCTs from parous female donors compared to male and nulliparous females were associated with a significantly higher incidence of grade III-IV acute (a) GVHD (55.27% vs. 11.34 and 10.84%) and extensive chronic (c) GVHD (64.32% vs. 15.52 and 13.65%), as well as lower relapse incidence (RI). Discussion: This study finds that while parous female donors are associated with higher incidences of grade III-IV aGVHD and extensive cGVHD post-allo-HSCT, the advantages, such as a lower RI, outweigh the risks. The results of our study provide valuable insights for donor selection.
ABSTRACT
Literature review suggests that surgery is the only option for dealing with intraperitoneal foreign bodies (laparoscopy and laparotomy). We showed that an interventional method using ultrasound guidance could be considered alongside surgical options.
